Lifetime licenses? Why keep them?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Sabertooth, Mar 6, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    Missed you on the first pass but I wanted to press you on this. Are you in the camp that believes that this change is nothing more than a cosmetic change and change of figurehead? That the old is the new and there's no difference between the two? I can understand the ethical argument in that case. I can't understand how you can hold the new management accountable for the old if the old management dropped you like a hot potato without so much as a whisper. These people seem to me to be picking up the pieces. If I'm wrong about that then maybe you're right but I don't think I'm wrong. Make your case.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2016
  2. jim2664258

    jim2664258 Well-Known Member

    Going forward, lifetime licenses cost X and those already having lifetime licenses pay Y to renew them with the new company. This isn't rocket science.
     
  3. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    Definitely the path of least resistance as long as it doesn't lead to Z, the end.
     
    Rileyrott and jim2664258 like this.
  4. BrianG61UK

    BrianG61UK Well-Known Member

    Don't I remember SlySoft announcing the end of LTLs and saying they were changing over to yearly or two yearly. It wasn't long before LTLs were back. Perhaps that means nobody much bought yearly or two yearly?

    --
    Brian G. (In the UK)
     
  5. Ch3vr0n

    Ch3vr0n Translator NL & Mod

    That was announced yes, but never implemented.
     
  6. poppywood

    poppywood Well-Known Member

    My friends, the fact is slysoft is no more. Anything that pops up now must distance itself from the past. My LTL is also on the line. If the new company aligns with old by using old LTL, it will find trouble in a hurry. It will be inherit risk just starting again. I will decide when i have the choices. The last time i was down this path the company never came back...
     
    eviltester likes this.
  7. Recycle

    Recycle Well-Known Member

    They already said otherwise on LTL why do people keep giving out misinformation. What last past the company never came back are you talking about?
     
  8. rdodolak

    rdodolak Active Member

    But you're assuming there is new management. Based on what I've read, the underlying employees (programmers) are the same other than the figurehead. A figurehead, by default, has no real power thus the existing employees were, and still are, the management. They are the same ones that sold the LTL so why not still honor those promises? The change in name is just semantics. Now, with that said, I do appreciate the work of all those that contributed to SlySoft, and now RedFox, but that doesn't change the underlying situation.
     
  9. _Worf_

    _Worf_ Member

    Well, one solution is simple - existing life time licenses remain valid, but they will unlock a version 6-12 months old. So your license will work for the last released version out there (7.6.8.1) until March 2017, then you can use the version after that. If you're a casual user, you probably won't notice. And your license is still valid an honored, just that the version you had to wait a year from its initial release. So the "newest" disc you can rip would be a year old. For casual users, this is perfect.

    If you want the cutting edge latest version, then you can buy a new RedFox license that will get you the latest releases without having to wait a year. This only applies to lifetime licenses - time limited versions will be always for the latest version
     
  10. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    How are you defining real power? I'll be specific in defining it for you. Real power being defined as the ability to control the money; i.e., what happens to the profits.

    Are you saying a salaried/contract employee (programmers) because they run the day to day operations of the business are the management because that won't hold up. Let me show you. I'm an floor sales employee at Sports Authority and I sell you a pair of sneakers and you give me the money. Sports Authority goes bankrupt (they just filed chapter 11). I leave the now defunct Sports Authority and open up Sabertooth's Sneaker Emporium. By your reasoning, I'd be liable for your Sports Authority purchase? After all it's the same management, me, by your logic, and I sold you the Sports Authority sneakers and took your money, just the name changed to Sabertooth's Sneaker Emporium. You don't see why that doesn't work?

    Also, if what you say is true then please explain the post No fox, no job, no future? at the top of this General forum section. Because the expression of surprise at the top of that post... it would seem that you're suggesting something ugly like a fabrication? After all, how would the real power holders be unaware of the demise of their company? (Or another way, how would a mere figurehead with no real power shut down the company and it's income stream without management (who you say is here) knowing?) There are statements there that they didn't get paid for their work even. Tell me how that works?

    Finally, let's examine if the figurehead with no power really was able to shut down the Antigua connection. How long do you think it would take to restore in that case? They moved the forum and you couldn't even tell and, if it was the same management, they could have done the same with the whole web site and they would be taking in money right now. Too much doesn't add up to what you suggest.

    Sorry, I don't buy it, a programmer isn't the same as the management, but if you've read something like you say you have that leads me to believe otherwise, please point that out to me now.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2016
  11. HomerGB

    HomerGB Well-Known Member

    This thread is getting silly now, certain members here are questioning other user comments just to score points.

    I think this thread has now run its course and therefore should be closed, that said everyone has the right to an opinion, but at present its all pure speculation, no one knows for sure what will happen regarding the licence issue.

    Please just be patient and wait for the announcement from RedFox, I'm sure James and his development team will come through for us all soon enough...
     
  12. antipodes

    antipodes Well-Known Member

    My remarks concerning reminder notice expenses were made on the assumption that when say a 2 year license was not renewed Slysoft would send a reminder,2nd reminder, final notice and as termination of license or something like that If the Beta update or New Version update included the license expiry details then theoretically there would be no need to send reminders and those costs would not be incurred. What happened to the staff who were employed to manage the day to day functioning of Slysoft; a bit of information from them might help to clarify some of the issues raised in this thread. I still believe a levy on all members to cover the costs of setting up Redfox including monies owed to developers and staff should be implemented. I agree with Sabretooth that there is a case for reviewing the license fee structure but not with the aim of removing LTLs; rather the falling demand for Blu-rays 4K and 8K versions will have an adverse effect on the long term prospects of Redfox.
     
  13. rmbrewer

    rmbrewer Well-Known Member

    I have been reading a lot of the comments. Way too many to read them all but why not do what a lot of the companies and other forums are doing. Those with lifetime licenses would continue to get the updates and would agree to purchase an annual "maintenance fee" of say $10.00 to $20.00 per year. The fee would be depending on how long you have owned the software. This part could be changed and everyone pay a straight "Maint Fee" not worrying about how long ago you have paid for the lifetime software license. This way it is fair to the life time customers, like myself and also to the new people signing up. I make no claims to knowing how big the database of licensees is but say you have 25,000 legal users. At $10.00 per year that is bringing in at minimum $250,000.00 yearly up to $500,000.00 Yearly depending on the amount to continue your license would cost. If you keep it low compared to raising it to say $100.00 yearly I believe your customer base would grow instead of many "home" users abandoning the product. This is just my thoughts. I have worked in an industry for years that have milked their customers with outrageous license fees and I understand the costs involved. Since I own lifetime licenses on everything but CloneBD I think discounts should be given on the other product licenses you own. Say pro-rate. $20.00 yearly if you own one down to $10.00 each (or even less) if you own all the products. Just my thoughts. Tear them up and let me know where my thoughts are off and it may make me think of something else. I think this would benefit Redfox and all of it's loyal, long term, lifetime customers. We love you guys and you have been a big part of my life for well over 10 years. Keep up the good work.
     
  14. Recycle

    Recycle Well-Known Member

    Again more fancy fairy tale story and failing to understand the post by malves....typical. Also if you going to quote taking the full quote rather edit to make support your response.

    Both post fail to understand Post #57 by malves and yet claim to know others financial situations. Speak for yourselves and stop thinking your malves or me for that matter. I seriously think this should be closed as it does nothing of value.
     
  15. NOKNOT

    NOKNOT Well-Known Member

    Sorry if this has already been mentioned but I didnt see it anywhere. When I purchased AnyDVD -HD I had to first have a license of AnyDVD, X amount of dollars for AnyDVD and then the same amount for AnyDVD-HD, so double the price to get AnyDVD-HD. If we are required to repurchase the license again will we have to purchase both like before or just the one we want. Thanks.

    Also I think I saw this posted, CloneDVD2 should not be affected since purchased from Elby,correct?

    Just wanted to add this

    1: EZ-CD Audio Converter
    2: DVD Audio Extractor
    3: Malwarebytes Pro
    4: Super Antispyware Pro
    5: Wondershare Video Converter
    6: Glary Utilities Pro
    7: Hard Disk Sentinel Pro
    8: DVDRebuilder Pro
    9: CloneDVD
    10: AnyDVD
    11: AnyDVD-HD

    A few of these I bought around the same time I purchased from SlySoft. All are lifetime licenses. All are still providing same services except 8-11. So some companies can exist selling lifetime licenses.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2016
  16. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    Entire quote (hmmm, doesn't work well with a lot of quotes in the quoted message):
    Part of quote that interests me:
    Ah, now we're getting someplace! Misunderstanding is something that can be fixed! Please, tell me why you think I've misunderstood the post #57. If you don't tell me what I'm getting wrong then how will I ever get it right?

    And, yes, this thread is part fairy tale as has been stated over and over, there's a lot of speculation in this thread and only the RedFox management know for sure what will work and what won't. This is a debate about the viability of the current licensing model based on little or no real facts.

    The entire quote thing doesn't work too well for me and it's not implemented that way in the forum especially when you include a lot of quotes like you did. It's a legitimate concern, quoting out of context, that you express though, I could be trying to manipulate a persons words. Perhaps you can point out if you feel I've missed something important or relevant to the quote that I focus on? I'm trying to focus on areas where I have questions over multiple posts some quite lengthy but I also post the reference back to the original comment too. I'm open to suggestions.

    I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't consider it silly, not anyone's beliefs or the questions that are asked to explore those beliefs. I am prepared to defend the legitimacy of my line of questioning if you'd care to point out where you feel I'm only scoring points and not getting to the heart of what I'm questioning.

    Since your contribution is short on specifics, I assume it's my line of questioning about figureheads and cosmetic change of ownership? Please, correct me if I'm wrong. I've seen several posting about this and I don't understand how you arrive at that conclusion. Am I wrong to point out inconsistencies? If I don't question what I don't get how will there be understanding? If your argument is good I could change my mind.
     
  17. HomerGB

    HomerGB Well-Known Member

    Sabertooth you really are an argumentive individual who really needs to get out more.
    You predictively jump to the conclusion and assume right or wrongly that my post was aimed at you, possibly in view of your consistent nonsical replies and rants throughout this thread.There is a old English saying "If the cap fits".....

    I stand by my original message and still think that this thread has gone its full course and still needs to be closed, I don't really care that you personaly do not consider it so, also you are wrong to attempt to point out any inconsistencies because it really does not have any relevance whatsoever because James and his team will do whatever it takes to deliver a fair licencing system when they're ready.

    I respectively request that you only contribute specific and positive information in relation to the subject and not interlectual waffle for your individual ego..
     
  18. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    You'll understand if I suggest that your purely personal attack against me is the one that adds nothing positive to the discussion.

    As my post directly preceded yours and as I am asking the most questions here, I think it was correct of me to assume your statements were directed at me and your above rant against me personally only confirms that suspicion. Are you saying you were directing your comments to someone else?

    If the argumentative nature of debate bothers you then you don't have to read this thread, do you? If you don't like what I say (or someone else) and want to contribute to the discussion then by all means speak up but personal attacks are really not accepted.
     
  19. HomerGB

    HomerGB Well-Known Member

    Your suggestions are purely observational and obviously appear to be a concern to you.

    Again you are assuming my comments were directed to you but I can confirm that my post was generalised but if you think my comments were a personal attack on you then you'll appreciate "There's no smoke without fire", and there's nothing I can do about your suspicions..

    I'm all in favour of a interesting/informative debate but you do tend to go overboard and disect everybody posts for no particular reason other than to satisfy your personal egotistical persona.

    I would like to remind you that this thread is predominately aimed at users/members comments/suggestions regarding the licence issue to help RedFox become the force they once was and not for swopping insults.

    With that in mind I also inform you that I'm not prepared to get into a slanging match with you or anyone else for that matter because it could be extremely detremental and does this forum no good whatsover...
     
  20. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    You're right, there's no smoke without fire and the only one slanging, as you put it, is you so I'll ask you to stop directing insults at me. I haven't made one such insult towards you at all. if you really don't want to get in to a slanging match then, please, just stop participating in the thread. I believe insulting behavior is a violation of the terms of service here.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2016
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.